“marginally statistically significant”

After exposure to pool air, there was a small decrease (0.8 FEV % ) that was marginally statistically significant (p=0.05).

In eight of the 11 questions, a statistically significant difference was recorded at p<0.001 (questions 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11), and in the two marginally statistically significant differences, p = 0.05 (questions 4 and 10) were established.

Here, the only marginally statistically significant effect is the reduced P2 amplitude in the Foreign condition ( p = 0.05).

coli detection on ED attendances is only marginally statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis for this outcome cannot be rejected at the conventional significance level of p<0.05.

Of the six possible pairwise correlations, we found only one that was marginally statistically significant at p < 0.05—a finding that could easily be the result of chance fluctuations and multiple comparisons.

H/I status remained marginally statistically significant in the adjusted model (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.00 to 4.64; P = .05) after adjusting for all clinicopathological factors examined (age, tumor size, tumor grade, nodal status, ER, PR, HER2) ( Supplementary Table 2 ).

This difference was marginally statistically significant in an independent sample t -test (t(4) = 2.7, p = 0.05).

The model explained 5.5% of the variance in PS in relation to the team leader (Adjusted R 2 = 0.055), but the variance was marginally statistically significant ( F (4.97) = 2.469, p = 0.050). 6.

However, this difference was marginally statistically significant only for ETR rates (cirrhotics: 87% versus noncirrhotics: 97%, P = 0.05). 3.2.

The type of vascular access (AVF or other types) is also marginally statistically significant (P = 0.05).

These negative correlations were not a generic consequence of clade 2 being on the chromosome and clades 3 and 4 on plasmids, since the correlation of clade 1 (also on the chromosome) and clade 3 was positive (marginally statistically significant, P = 0.05).

Meta‐analysis of four RCTs ( N = 1425) in patients with rGERD showed a marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.05) increase in the symptom response rate when a TLESR inhibitor was added to PPI therapy compared to PPI therapy alone (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86–1.00) [ 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ].

The indirect comparisons of efficacy between tofacitinib and control was marginally statistically significant at P < 0.05 in the NMA of all 16 trials and became significant after removing the 1 trial deemed high risk of bias.

Even if mean PPD did not reach a statistically significant value, the results showed that mean CAL was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.05).

In the generalized linear model for MIH, the interaction term between race and postoperative uterine weight was marginally statistically significant ( p =0.05).

Among Decipher low‐risk patients in the SRT arm, anxiety decreased in the majority of patients, and prostate cancer‐specific anxiety exhibited a marginally statistically significant decrease ( P = .05).

The results indicated that the correlation between responses to the anticipation question and responses to the disappointment question was marginally statistically significant (r s = 0.26, p = .050, N = 59). 3.2 Experiment 2 We first excluded one participant who did not answer all test questions, and confirmed that no participants failed to respond correctly (i.e. “Paris”) to the attention check question.

The Hp 2-1 genotype had 2.64 (1.0–7.08) higher odds of CAD than the Hp 1-1 genotype; however, this was marginally statistically significant ( p = 0.05).

Although the overall difference across the four groups was only marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.050; Supplementary Figure S5 ), patients treated with PI-based regimens demonstrated a higher survival probability than patients who received conventional treatments (Bonferroni adjusted P = 0.029).

However, as shown in Table 2 , there was a marginally statistically significant difference based on ethnicity (p=0.05), with the intervention and control conditions representing greater numbers of Chamorro and Chuukese youths, respectively.

The association between pregnancy and repeat positive test was marginally statistically significant ( P = 0.05).

The difference between subgroups was marginally statistically significant (Chi2=3.84, df=1, P = 0.05, I2=73.9%).

Chromosomal aberrations of GS-intestinal and GS-diffuse tumors were similar with only a few marginally statistically significant ( p < 0.05; FDR < 0.27) differences between these two subgroups: losses of chromosomes 4p16.3, 6q14.1–q15, and 10p12.31–p12.1 occurred more often in GS-intestinal than GS-diffuse tumors, whereas gains of chromosome 8 occurred more often in GS-diffuse than GS-intestinal tumors.

Thi⁠s differe‌nce was marginally statistically significant (P=0.05‍), alt​h⁠ough it demonstrated a tre‌n​d​ favouring F‍THCS.

The regression coefficients β 0 = 0.0701 (SE = 0.0152), β 2 = 0.0370 (SE = 0.0065), β 3 = 0.0194 (SE = 0.0056) and β 6 = 0.0008 (SE = 0.0003) were marginally statistically significant at P = 0.05 and R 2 = 0.726.